Which Server Hardware is Better?

I have come to the conclusion that I have to upgrade my current dedicated server. Now, the question is what is the better solution:

Variant 1:

HP DL165 G7 with AMD Opteron 6164 HE Chipset
2 x Opteron 6164 HE, 24 Cores (2x12)
16 GB DDR3-RAM ECC


Price: 199$ a month

Variant 2:

HP DL120 G7 with Intel Xeon E3-1270 Chipset
Xeon E3-1270, Quadcore
8 GB DDR3-RAM ECC


Price: 99$ a month. Please note that if I am going with Variant 2 then I would rent two servers!

The disk configuration for both variants:

2x 1,000 GB SATA II-HDDs, 7,200rpm
RAID 1



It is not clear for me which hardware to choose (data transfer included in the package is assumed to be sufficient, and the amount of diskspace is not so important/enough in any variant).

I do not want to run out of concurrent webserver connections, and in the past the Apache Configuration was tricky (prefork, initial processes, number of child processes etc). So this is why I am not jumping on Variant 1, because despite the powerful hardware I might encounter Apache (or SQL) concurrent connection issues. This might be easier to handle with 2 smaller servers as in Variant 2. On the other hand I don't know whether the prefork, initial processes, number of child processes etc stuff still matters so much in Apache version 5.

I am looking forward to hear your opinion - vahing

 

The first configuration with the CPU I have no idea about but the second configuration I know that the CPU benchmarks up around 8.8k So you may want to go with the second solution. Then again it all depends on the quality of the hardware you are renting.

If you could PM me who you are planning to purchase through as I am looking for a new server.

 

It depends upon what you intend to do with them. The issue here is your disk sub systems aren't good, so you'd probably get more benefit from using 2 servers than you would from a single server. On the other hand the CPU on the first server has significantly more processing power but could be hindered by only 16GB of RAM, and with a web site or database all the CPU power will come to nothing if you can't read/write the data fast enough from the disks....which makes me look at variant 2 again.

There's not really enough information available to make a definitive decision. When it comes to servers here's what's cheapest to provide (cheapest first)

RAM
CPU
DISK SYSTEM (I'm talking about SYSTEMS rather than just disks)

but when it comes to performance, here's what really counts in terms of bottlenecks when you start to push the server...

DISK SYSTEM
RAM
CPU (unless you're running incredibly CPU intensive super-computing).

Don't be suckered into massive CPU power unless you have the RAM and DISKS to make the best of them.

 

Thanks for your elaborate answer. Here some more information.
Both sever type have DDR3 ECC Registered RAM, and in terms of the disks they both have:
RAID 1, without hardware controller
SATA II 7,200 rpm
SSD Quantity 0 (up to 4 possible)
SSD Capacity (up to 512 GB possible).
The server models are:
HP DL165 G7 in Variant 1, and HP DL120 G7 in Variant 2.

What I am going to use it for is simply hosting all my websites on it/them. I have quit a number of game sites using various scripts, Wordpress powered sites, a few HTML sites as well.

My current server is too weak; I currently have about one outage a week, and the impression it is all too slow because with the giving configuration load is too high.

 

You can go with second one in terms of "100% money value" .

For configuration , second one is best as it has 24 cores and 16GB RAM.

Plus for better servers + price , you can contact sales[at]mnchost.com .

Good Luck

 

Tut! Tut! No advertising, and no direct soliciting. With 448 posts, you should know.

 

I was just about to pull him up on that

With the second option if you do need 3-4 servers just order a cluster solution or load balancing through your provider.

 

What's the spec of your current server? That's always a good to point to start with....you KNOW you need more power than it has.

We've tried a few SSD's but I can't say I'm that impressed with them yet. We use some of the newest SSD's with SATA III interfaces and hardware raid controllers with SATA III and they're just so-so. Faster than SATA drives but they aren't a match to 15K RPM SAS drives (my own experience only).

Software RAID 1 is OK. I've no problem with the newer software raid controllers as they seem to be pretty resilient.

DDR3 ECC-R is good, standard, and getting nice and cheap.

Can't help you much regarding Apache as I work for a Windows host using IIS. We're also pretty much exclusively Supermicro although I have been tempted recently with some HPs which always seem well-engineered.

I don't think you're going to get a definitive answer. My gut instinct is go for two servers to separate the processes, but maybe be prepared to upgrade one of them if needed. Not much help, but it's often a case of try it, find the issue, adapt, try again, or just go completely crazy, overspecify, and waste money. It's not a precise science with so many variables, and as you can see from the posts different people have different opinions.

 

Indeed, this is likely the way I will go. The current hardware has too many sites on it, only 4 GB of RAM, and a weak processor. I am confident the two server solution will aleviate the situation by more than doubling the CPU power and quadrupling the total amount of memory.

 

AMD have become a poor competitor to Intel in recent years. Long gone are the days where they used to dominate. e.g. Athlon XP was superior than Pentium 4.

Nowadays Intel have just taken over with their Sandybridge and Ivybridge architectures. Even in the Server space, the new Xeons are just awesome beasts.

 

Always take care about you RAM,CPU (AMD)
and unlimited power source.

 

ask netpardaz company they can really advice you to choose the best server

 

The price of the first server is relatively high considering its hardware, whereas the second server has a more up-to-date processor, making it more suitable for certain server uses.

 

Look at the timestamp of the post lol!

 

Wow, I didn't see the date.
Thanks